The Crisis Of Akal Takht Sahib

THE CRISIS OF AKAL TAKHT SAHIB - Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer [From the October 2003 Sikh Bulletin] On one hand Iqbal Singh, the caretaker of Patna Sahib, has excommunicated Mohinder Singh Romana from the Sikh Panth and on the other hand Giani Joginder Singh (Vedanti) has excommunicated Gurbakhsh Singh Kala Afghana from the Sikh Panth. As a follow up a statement issued from Akal Takht on July 24, 2003 has rejected the “Hukamnama” of Patna Sahib.

Are all these actions in accordance with the Sikh principles? Can any one be excommunicated from the Sikh Panth for "any" reason? If there is a provision or possibility for excommunicating any one from the Panth, then, what is the proper procedure for such an action? Do the Sikhs have five Takhts? Is Akal Takht Sahib “superior” or “senior” to other Takhts? Can other Takhts issue/not issue edicts or so-called Hukamnamas? Is it only Akal Takht or some hand-picked “senior” five priests/clergy who have authority to issue “Hukamnamas” or to “excommunicate” any Sikh from the Sikh Panth? Can Akal Takht nullify the “Hukamnamas” of the other “Takhts”? Can there be a Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib? (There is such an officer since 1920). Is it a Granthi/priest who should generally be appointed as the caretaker (or so-called Jathedar) of Akal Takht Sahib? (With the exception of Prof. Darshan Singh Ragi, Bhai Ranjit Singh and Jasbir Singh Rode, all the other caretakers were Granthi employees of the S.G.P.C.). Is it an office or status of clergy-ship? How and why were most of the caretakers of Akal Takht Sahib appointed by the SGPC. What should be the ‘qualifications in Sikhism’ of these caretakers. The role played by these persons or their performance is still a different issue. Today, I would like to draw the attention of the Panth to the

future of this great institution of the Sikh Panth. There is no second view that Akal Takht Sahib is the supreme authority of the Sikh nation. But, this authority is neither vested in the management of this building nor is important the person holding its charge (so-called Jathedar). It is an institution, an honour, a sanction, a sovereign Throne with highest honour, greatest authority and all powerful status given and powered by the Sikh Panth and granted to it by Guru Sahib and inscribed in the Sikh history and Sikh philosophy. Akal Takht Sahib is the central religio-political-spiritual sovereign seat of the Almighty and every Sikh has his/her first obligation to this institution. No Sikh dare defy it in any form and to any extant. It is once for all complete obligation of every Sikh.

The designation of the "Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib" is a post-1920 phenomenon. Before 1920, there was a Sarbrah (a sort of manager) of Akal Takht Sahib. Arur Singh was the last person to hold this office. Arur Singh did never play any priestly functions. He was, in fact, working as a ‘senior manager’ on behalf of the British regime (religious functions and such like activities were performed by the other priests/granthis etc.). Earlier, in 1830-40, Gurmukh Singh, too, was known as caretaker of Akal Takht Sahib, though there was no designation granted to him. Like his father Bhai Sant Singh, Gurmukh Singh was almost all in all of the Darbar Sahib and Akal Takht Sahib, as far as the management was concerned. The priests of the Takht sahib and Darbar Sahib had their own duties to perform. Gurmukh Singh was more of a politician than a religious person. He had embezzled rupees 125,000 given to him by General Hari Singh Nalwa for the goldplating the dome of Akal Takht Sahib. Gurmukh Singh was tortured to death during the reign of Hira Singh Dogra as a result of Darbar power struggle. His dead body was never found. Between 1799 and 1823, Akali Phula Singh was the caretaker of Akal Takht Sahib. No source, published prior to 1930, mentions him as the so-called Jathedar of Takht Sahib. He was, in fact, the Jathedar of the Nihang Jatha,

which was, usually, the custodian of most of the Sikh shrines. After Akali Phula Singh's death, the Nirmalas (Gurmukh Singh and his son Parduman Singh and others) established themselves as the sole caretakers of the Sikh shrines. With this crept several Hindu customs in the Gurdwaras (some of which are still continuing). There is a reference in the Sikh history to the solving of a dispute between the so-called Tat Khalsa and so-called Bandai Khalsa by Bhai Mani Singh in 1723 (some sources give other dates too). To solve this dispute Bhai Mani Singh did not call a meeting of Five Priests, nor did he issue any socalled Hukamnama by himself. Bhai Mani Singh invited both the groups to hold a meeting at Akal Takht Sahib. All the Sikhs present there, in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib, made a consensus to “write the names of both the groups on two pieces of paper and dip them in the tank of Drabar Sahib. The paper first appearing shall be considered as the genuine/winner group”. This was nothing more than a lottery. It was no logical or conceptual decision; it was no Gurmat at all. Now, let us have a look at the result of this ‘agreement’. The so-called Tat Khalsa were the winners as their piece of paper appeared first. But, in spite of the fact that the decision of lottery had been taken by all of them in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib, the leaders of the so-called Bandai Khalsa refused to accept this verdict (Bhai Mani Singh did not excommunicate them from Panth for showing back to a decision taken in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib). Now, one of their leaders insisted on a wrestling boot between the chief wrestlers of both the groups. This too was accepted upon by so-called Tat Khalsa. Per chance, this time too, the so-called Tat Khalsa were the winners. Now, most of the leaders of the so-called Bandai Khalsa surrendered and accepted the verdict (though reached through a strange method). Amar Singh Kamboj of Khem Karan, one of the leaders of the socalled Bandai Khalsa, still refused to accept this. Even now, Bhai Mani Singh, the main priest (pujaran sion vadda pujari according to Ratan Singh Bhangu), whom some ignorant people may call so-called

Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib, did not issue any Hukamnama excommunicating Amar Singh Kamboj. We do have a record of (so-called) excommunication of Professor Gurmukh Singh from Akal Takht Sahib in 1887. Even this time, no Five Priests were called to decide this (so-called) excommunication. This (so-called) excommunication was announced by 9-10 persons, who signed this so-called “Hukamnama” as: “Hazareen, Ahudedaraan, Granthian va pujarian” (Persons present, office bearers/officials, Granthis and the Pujaris). Again, there is another instance of issuance of a so-called Hukamnama, on October 5, 1913, from Hazur Sahib, asking the “Amritdhari Sikhs not to wear a Kirpan of less than one foot of size”. Was this Hukamnama in accordance with the Sikh Maryada (or Rahitmaryada or Takht Maryada)? or was it against Sikh principles? Why did not Akal Takht reject it? Why did not Akal Takht take initiative to issue itself? Further, this Hukamnama was signed by: “Nihang Granthi, Granthi, Rasaldar va Sarbrah, vakil Gurdwara, Dhupiey, Pujari and Master” (the Nihang priest, priest, Rasaldarcaretaker, Gurdwara attorney, incenseburners, ritual performers and a teacher). These persons were not so-called Jathedars, nor were they ‘Five Priests; nor were they selected by Panth to decided any thing. These were, perhaps, the only persons present at the time of issuance of this letter/notification (so-called Hukamnama). Akal Takht Sahib did not say that the procedure adopted by them was wrong or they were not entitled to issue that socalled Hukamnama. Again a so-called Hukamnama was issued from Hazur Sahib, in 1984, as a reaction to the attack of the Indian army on Darbar Sahib in 1984, excommunicating Zail Singh, Buta Singh etc. At that time Kirpal Singh was the caretaker of Akal Takht Sahib. He did not reject that so-called Hukamnama. Here, I am not going to reject or justify or evaluate the methodology or sanction behind these so-called

Hukamnamas issued by Hazur Sahib in 1913 and 1984 or by Patna Sahib in 2003 or by Akal Takht Sahib in 1887 or 2003. I do not want to make any public comments on this issue, at the present juncture. These are national issues and the whole of the Sikh Panth MUST decide these issues once for all, in order to re-establish the authority of Akal Takht Sahib. Today, the Sikh Panth is passing through a critical stage. The Panth has several issues to solve. The unity of the Sikh organisations shall be solved (or not) by Gurcharan Singh Tohra- Badal-Talwandi-Simranjit Singh Mann-Sarbjot Singh Bedi and others. The future of the Panth is still a very important issue. But, today, the status and the authority of Akal Takht Sahib is most important issue for the Sikh Panth at the present juncture. We must hold a Sarbat Khalsa meeting (a genuine Sarbat Khalsa) to decide the following issues: 1. What is the scope, jurisdiction, status and the role of Akal Takht Sahib? 2. Do the Sikhs have five Takhts? 3. Is Akal Takht Sahib “superior” or “senior” to other Takhts? If so, then what is the scope, jurisdiction, status and the role of the other “Takhts”? Are they Takhts or former Takhts or Gurdwaras with a special status? 4. Is it only Akal Takht or some hand-picked “senior” five priests/clergy who have authority to issue “Hukamnamas” or to “excommunicate” any Sikh from the Sikh Panth? 5. Can other Takhts issue/not issue edicts or so-called Hukamnamas? 6. Can any Sikh be excommunicated from the Sikh Panth for "any" reason? If there is a provision or possibility for excommunicating any one from the Panth, then, what is the proper procedure for such an action? 7. Is there any office as “the Jathedar/caretaker Akal Takht Sahib”? Does it exist as per the Sikh Takht Sahib”? Does it exist as per the Sikh fundamentals?

8. If it exists, then what should be the procedure of selecting/electing him/her? 9. What are the functions, duties, rights and the privileges of the caretaker of Akal Takht Sahib? 10. Can a “Takht” (or Akal Takht Sahib) nullify the decision of another “Takht” These are very crucial issues which the Sikhs must decide as soon as possible so that the ambiguity or confusion regarding the role, status and the functioning of the institution of Takht should be clear to every Sikh (and even non-Sikhs). It should be decided once for all so that no one should dare make any improper comments regarding the Throne of the Almighty. The institution of Akal Takht Sahib or “Takht” in general has been harmed by several actions and statements issued for Akal Takht Sahib or Patna Sahib or Hazur Sahib or by some Sikh leaders and the other activists. Today, the status of Akal Takht Sahib is not the same as it is inherent in its concept or as it was two decades earlier. The responsibility for this lies with the leadership in general and the so-called Jathedars in particular. The Sikh intelligentsia and the elite should take immediate steps to bring an end to such anti-Sikh atmosphere. Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, 14 Vineyard Close, Winson Green, Birmingham, England. B18 4QW, Tel: 00 (44) 7817094342 Email: [email protected] ***